City OKs medical marijuana dispensary regulations amid ongoing debate

Steamboat Springs  City officials adopted regulations Tuesday for medical marijuana dispensaries in Steamboat Springs, setting new policies that could do more to spur local debate than stop it.

The Steamboat Springs City Council adopted the city’s first medical marijuana regulations on a 6-1 vote, with Councilman Kenny Reisman opposing. Reisman’s objection stemmed from the same issue raised by two members of the public and local lawyer Jennifer Robbins: the fact that the regulations allow only three dispensaries in city limits, one of which must operate as a co-op. Robbins noted that when the City Council enacted a moratorium on dispensaries in August, two for-profit dispensaries already had opened their doors. Because the new regulations allow only two for-profit dispensaries, Robbins said, “there was never a chance for anyone else to get in … which is a closed market.”

Robbins said she is representing several residents concerned about the issue, including medical marijuana patients, a client interested in opening a dispensary and others. She said the limited number of dispensaries “will limit the patients’ options in choosing their caregivers” and could lead to price-fixing or a monopoly situation.

Reisman said he would have preferred to leave the number of dispensaries open, with costlier application fees — in the range of $5,000 to $10,000, he said. The approved ordinance requires a $400 application fee and an annual renewal fee of $100.

Daryl Levin, who co-owns D and C Medical Marijuana and Therapeutic Massage with Charles Magnuson, spoke in favor of the limit.

“We don’t need (more dispensaries) right now,” he said.

Magnuson said the notion that dispensaries are lucrative is incorrect, at least in Steamboat.

“We’re working for no pay, and we aren’t making any money,” he said. “There just aren’t enough people with (medical marijuana) licenses.”

Robbins suggested allowing more dispensaries by using a review process similar to the process for liquor license applications. The City Council acts as the city’s Liquor License Authority to review each new liquor license application.

Councilman Walter Magill noted that allowing a higher number of dispensaries, such as five, might seem like a lot, “but we sure have a lot of liquor stores.”

City records clerk Sabrina James said last month that there were 87 active liquor licenses in Steamboat.

Councilman Jon Quinn said revisions to the ordinance largely addressed his previous concerns about security regulations, specifically whether law enforcement should be allowed access to video surveillance at dispensaries. Quinn said that raised patient privacy issues.

The approved ordinance says dispensary owners may, but are not required to, provide video footage to law enforcement and can edit that footage to protect patient privacy.

As part of the adoption vote, the City Council agreed to re­­view the regulations in one year.

Also Tuesday, the City Council denied zoning changes for a 2-acre parcel at Storm Meadows Drive and Burgess Creek Road in a 3-3 vote, where a tie meant denial. Magill and council members Jim Engelken and Meg Bentley voted against the changes, which would have allowed increased density on the site near open space and residential neighborhoods. Reisman, who owns a residence nearby, stepped down from the vote.

The “no” vote was a change for Magill, who voted in favor of the zoning changes — with reservations — in November and again last month, when the City Council gave the changes initial approval.

The denial on final reading clearly frustrated the development team and consultants.

“How can we come through as developers and know what to do?” asked Jeremy MacGray, of JSM Builders Inc.

Council President Cari Hermacinski voted for the zoning changes throughout the process.

“I think this sets terrible precedent for any developer trying to work in our community,” Hermacinski said about Tuesday’s reversal.

The City Council also unanimously approved the election plan for the mail-only vote on the proposed Steamboat 700 annexation and an agreement with Routt County to provide vote-tallying services. Ballots will be mailed between Feb. 15 and Feb. 19, and the vote concludes March 9.

Comments

Given the above, I feel compelled to write in support of Walter's vote against the up-zoning of that parcel.

In approving a development application, one looks almost entirely to the existing rules - the zoning codes. The developers "know what to do".

When CHANGING the rules or zoning codes, there often are no rules. One has to weigh an unwritten and larger set of parameters. High in this list would be one's estimation of the will of the community and the best interests of the community. Those should, without question, match or even trump the wishes of the development community.

Put this parcel re-zoning in a ballot question and it would be a landslide "no".

Developers should let this be a lesson. The citizens of this city are perfectly happy with the run down 70's suburban crap that exists today. They do not want it to change. You should all take your investments elsewhere.

I want to voice my support for Walters vote also.. His indecisiveness is refreshing and indicates that he values the public process above anything else. After all we are supposed to be undecided prior to all of our public meetings and weigh all the input from both sides at that meeting. Good job making a very difficult decision Walter.

TWill,
You are right. The council agenda last night had 4, 5? development permit extensions. I assume they were approved. I'll support that because a planner said all were initially approved before the economic bust. I sympathize with their difficulty moving forward and I think we should give them the extra time.

But we still have some developers, as this was, who will come forward looking to enhance their land value by adding extra vested development rights to their parcel. We should be fair per the existing rules, but bending over backwards to incentivize more units into the pipeline seems like a very, very bad idea.

Mike Lawrence,
Please try in your future writing to represent both sides of a development issue, rather than only the pro-development side, as you did above. The 3 "nay" voters gave no reason for their votes?

I have been present at the hearings for the 2 acre parcel application.
I concur with your support to Walter. He took time and effort to consider the issue.
I think that Cari Hermacinski’s comment (“I think this sets terrible precedent for any developer trying to work in our community,”) was totally and utterly inappropriate – especially as President of the Council.
The process proved that the citizens have a voice which is what public process is all about.
Furthermore, the developer was overly ambitious from the start by designing and producing detailed drawings of a 137 foot tall 11 story building with reduced set backs including resort and commercial uses on a lot zoned for a single family dwelling. How could they be so presumptuous to believe that their request for rezoning would be automatically approved and thus their investment in the design be allowed to proceed? They should be upset at themselves and not at the process. They should be upset at Planning Department for supporting their applications that were rejected.
I think the precedent that President Hermacinski should be setting is that developers must get zone upgrade approval before spending money on designs of buildings that are far beyond the zoning of the lot they purchased.

"...The council tabled the issue Dec. 15 after Councilman Jon Quinn questioned a provision that would allow law enforcement to access video surveillance from dispensaries any time during normal business hours. Quinn said Monday the provision “seemed like an invasion of privacy."

you think?

there they go again...wasting our money. * law enforcement: please don't spend your time accessing video surveillance for the frickin' pot dispensary. isn't there some violent crime the you could be investigating? or a sex crime? seriously....

While I am not exactly a fan of medical marijuana considering it not to be a legitimate drug, I am aghast that any business would have to submit itself to video surveillance as a condition of conducting business.

That is an absurd idea if for no other reason than who the hell is going to be watching and toward what end?

If mmj is legal by virtue of state law and the recent 8th Dist Ct of Appeals decision on 22 Dec 2009 seems to call that assumption into real question, what possible justification can there be for video surveillance of a "legal" business?

Actually, I think that pharmacies are required to maintain video surveillance records and most businesses that have a high robbery rate maintain their own surveillance. The real question here is at what point does law enforcement have both a need and a right to access those records.

I would maintain that it is perfectly OK to require such documentation but that the police should have to have a Search Order or the owners permission to access them.

I don't think it is the worry of the dispensary getting robbed that has city council in favor of video surveillance. A video camera is not going to keep someone with a gun from robbing a dispensary. If it did happen at least there would be some sort of evidence that there was actually a robbery. Keep those dispensary owners in line! They are dealing with making a lot of money for profit correct? Keep tabs on what they are doing as well as the people who visit the dispensary. Does anyone know how easy it is to walk into the building called RMR or D and C? Very simple use your own two feet and go see there is no security..LOL Now when I visited Rocky Mountain Remedies for the first and only time I witnessed an argument between a patient and the owners. The owners specifically said that the only reason they hooked him up was becuase they were kayak buddies and then preceded to 86 the kid from the store. It was really wierd becuase the person I had just got done talking to before hand said that he knew the owners Ryan and Steve Fisher becuase of kayaking. The owners of the dispensary have also harrased me over the internet on my facebook account and threatened me with bodily harm. Chew on that Steamboat ! I am a local resident and patient.

There is no "requirement" for pharmacies to maintain video surveillance records or to have any means of video surveillance of its POSs and many pharmacies will routinely deliver YOUR prescription to another person if that person can provide adequate information to identify not themselves but the holder of the prescription.

Doctors routinely have their nurses phone in prescriptions making the delivery system even more suspect.

Interestingly enough the State of Colorado sells its DMV database to insurance companies for $5MM per year. Insurance companies contend they have a legitimate business interest in ensuring they are only insuring persons who hold a valid Colorado drivers license. There is a symbiotic (predatory?) relationship at work here.

Only drivers with a valid Colo DL and insurance can lawfully operate a car in Colorado; and, only certain companies can sell automotive liability insurance in Colorado as licensed by the State.

The big dark and dirty secret is biometrics identification. The pictures used for a DL are sufficient for biometric identification. A biometric identification system (based upon the shape of your head, the distance between your eyes, the slope of your nose, the thickness of your lips, the shape of our cheeks and other facial features, etc.) hooked up to a "fast" computer can process 50MM records per second --- yes, 50MM faces per second.

Umm, that's one second for the entire population of say, England, and only 6 seconds for the entire population of the US.

All Super Bowl games since 2001 have used the Viisage system to process face recognition of everybody walking into a Super Bowl game.

The only real legal question is --- is your face "private" information and do you have a "reasonable expectation" of maintaining its privacy or do you lose all expectation of privacy when you parade your face in public?

You will have to tee up the 4th and 5th amendments to do this subject justice. Good luck!

As an aside, this shows how totally dopey the recent Christmas terrorist attack truly was. Visa and Am Ex can determine if you have any money or credit in your account in about 20 seconds and Viisage can process 50MM faces per second and we can't stop one freakin' jabeep when we had him under surveillance for over an hour while changing planes.

I have no problem with cameras,
As long as every other business in Steamboat is required to to have the same. AND all dr's offices...shoot may throw a kicker in that patient confidentiality thing....darn.

Nobody should have a problem with cameras unless they are doing something wrong.. Isn't that what a camera is for? When you see a picture of yourself you may not like the way you look if you see something wrong. Like take skiing for instance, every little detail in a picture makes the world of a difference. You can see what your doing and see if anything needs to be changed or fixed. If it looks really bad then you need to change your ways and stop doing whatever you were trying to do.. Does this make sense?

You can look me up anywhere you want and find me Scott. I'm everywhere and everybody knows who I am. Skifreelivelove is my family crest and is who I am. My name is Glenn Little II on Facebook and that's how the owners of RMR found me so they could harass me.. Well, Scott Wedel I appreciate the fact that you are concerned about your fellow citizen so I would like to offer you to come get your skis tuned at Sportstalker for an Olympic quality tune. We do hand tuning as well upon request..

My life and my passion for this mountain life cannot be silenced. Like a knife slashing powder is my life and I will dye on the mountain side. May peace be with all that sacrafice there life for snow on this planet sustains human life..

The owners of RMR have a profile on a Leagalmarijuanadispensary.com also known as weedmaps.com and it's a crosbreed between googlemaps and facebook type of internet community to write reviews on dispensaries around Colorado. The kid that they 86 out of the dispensary gave them a bad review so the owners of the dispensary decided to humiliate this guy in front of everyone who was waiting. How unprofessional is that and so when I left a bad review on the same website they began to harass me not only on weedmaps.com, but also my facebook.com profile. Everytime I put a new review up they get the website moderaters to take it down. They also took down the other review from the dude they 86 for life.. Weak sauce! I'm not gonna let them just walk all over me like they did to the fellow they told to never come back. It even says on the website where you leave a review for the dispensary, right next to the button that says "Add new review", it says"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of a club and please share yours!"

Oh, I almost forgot. Why would the owners of the dispensary go out of there way to harass me and I have never once met them in my life before that day and have never been back to there store since that day? Maybe it was the kind of way that they do business.

I didnt think there should be extra camera regulations untill the shooting at the dispensery in denver last week,and then now hearing the extreme emotions skifreelivelove has over his issue,maybe there is potential for trouble and a camera will make people think twice before they cause trouble.

Yeah, but there are shootings at many types of businesses all the time in big cities...my issue here is with “...allowing law enforcement to access video surveillance from dispensaries any time during normal business hours...” as part of the LAW. Seems ridiculous, unnecessary and invasive to me...shouldn't our boys in blue be focusing our scarce law enforcement resources at things like violent crime, for instance?

Law inforcement shouldnt be involved unless there is a crime and then it would be on tape,just about every business has a camera for that purpose.For the police to just moniter it for illegal activity would be wrong,innocent untill proven guilty.

Put up a sign that says there is a hidden surveillance system, I don't care.. make it safe instead of sketchy. The authority needs not to be involved I agree. But everything still needs to be recorded one way or another. Otherwise there is no real way to keep track of what it really going on.. Who is to explain for that? The patients and random customers or the owners of the store? It's called unorganized

I personally think that mmj is a huge hoax and thumbs its nose at the untidy little detail that it is against Federal law. States should go out of their way to conform to Federal law rather than simply disregard it.

But if the people of Colorado or the Colorado Legislature are prepared to amend the State Constitution in complete disregard of Federal law, even then individual citizens are not required to give up their 4th Amendment rights to unlawful search and seizure.

The right against unlawful search and seizure is a right held by every individual American citizen under the US Constitution and should not lightly be ignored or bartered away.

Even as much as I disdain mmj, I would protect the rights of any mmj purveyor not to have their premises under constant surveillance by law enforcement.

The mmj purveyor may decide that it makes business sense to have the premises under camera surveillance but it should not do that under the pressure of law enforcement.

There are many instances in which law enforcement may have legitimate rights of surveillance --- as an example the public thoroughfares and rights or way and airports and public works --- but not individual private businesses.

There is a huge difference between a business having surveillance and making it a requirement that the police can look at it whenever.

If there is a crime that the business owner wants investigated then the business owner can give the recording to the police. If there was a crime and the business is not cooperative then if the police have reasonable cause to believe there is a crime then the police can get a subpoena to force the business owner to hand over the recordings.

If the business is required to allow the police to review the videotapes at will then that creates a situation ripe for abuse. It creates the opportunity for fishing expeditions and harassment of patients. Many surveillance systems also include audio. Is it really fair that the police could have access to discussions between a patient and their caregiver?

The security requirements of a dispensary should be similar to that required of pharmacies. They have serious drugs, some of which are abused and thus can be resold, and can kill if used incorrectly.

I find this discussion about the surveillance extremely interesting because it begins to broach the subject of privacy and how it is mostly becoming a thing of the past. In my mind, the question has more to do with what kind of business(es) truly warrant unfettered access to their surveillance by law enforcement. Think about it for a minute. What businesses sell things so important that the information regarding who, when and how becomes, possibly, instantly important? What could make this information so immediately important? After thinking about this for a while myself, the best I could come up with is businesses that sell tools of violence. Obviously, the only circumstance(s) that could warrant such an immediacy for viewing surveillance from anywhere would have to mean that the information could possibly prevent danger, harm and/or violence from befalling someone.
I just don't see how this is justly applied to dispensaries and their clientele.

mmj - Give up the pro dope debate. Cameras are possibly necessary because those types of businnesses are probably at high risk for crime. They are selling drugs out of a store front for backaches. Duke bets that a vast majority of the clientele is probably shady.

So, you're still on this, "marijuana isn't medicine" kick 'eh?
Well, let's look at medicine for a moment or two.

First of all, what is medicine and what qualifies a substance as medicinal?
Well, let's look at what Webster says it is;
1 a : a substance or preparation used in treating disease b : something that affects well-being
2 a : the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease b : the branch of medicine concerned with the nonsurgical treatment of disease
3 : a substance (as a drug or potion) used to treat something other than disease
4 : an object held in traditional American Indian belief to give control over natural or magical forces; also : magical power or a magical rite
So, it's obvious that medicine comes from many different places and sometimes it's just a naturally occurring plant that can offer the most efficacious "side-effects." All to often, at least in modern times, people tend to think of medicine as strictly the concoctions that pharmaceutical companies come up with. As it turns out, we're seeing that these "medicines" are turning out to be less than beneficial to some or most of it's users. All you have to do is watch the latest drug company commercials on TV.

Secondly, let's take a look at what all is present in marijuana and what those components have to offer to the human body. There is a veritable armada of sources for information on the subject that can be found but here's a short list to get you started:
Let's start with a nice fair & balanced approach(not the Fox news brand either);
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000086

mmj - Aich and yourself actually have a lot in common. Neither of you have ever lost a debate because you have never answered the question that is presented.

Dope doesn't treat anything and it's not medicine. Getting baked does not cure anything that ails the human body. You may forget about the ailment for a hour or two, but that is about the extent.

I've stated this before..............Nobody starts smoking pot because they have cancer. I personally know 100's of people that have cancer (as we all do). Several of them probably smoke pot, but Duke bets that every person in that example smoked pot long before they had cancer. Get it yet?

So you're all uppity because I didn't directly answer your question of whether I could argue that drugs don't bring violence? Is that right? Well, if that's the case, let me answer your question with a couple of my own.
Do you think prohibiting marijuana is producing more crime or preventing more crime?
How is the marijuana prohibition any different from the alcohol prohibition(besides the obvious)?
And last but not least, what exactly do you think happens to people(fits of rage?murderous rampages?) when they get all high on the reefer?

Oh, and you must have just blindly ignored every single one of those links because had you read them you would know that essential oil from cannabis has been proven to CURE, not treat but CURE, certain skin cancers. Many, and when I say that I mean many, of my family members have been plagued by cancer. This isn't some arbitrary argument I've decided to take up for the sake of stirring the pot or pissing in someone's cheerio's. Treating and curing cancer is something that is very near and dear to my heart.
What are you in this for? Who are you trying to impress?

Herb is like Advil and you take it when you have a head ache then the pain goes away. If people start robbing stores like Safeway and City Market then DUKE_BETTER start worrying.. Advil is a drug that a store sells and another is ephedra. Remember stacker 2 energy pills. They made that illegal to make since it contained basically Speed and becuase people were stealing it from the grocery store so they could high. Duke is right the majority of the clients may be shady but who can really tell ones true intent to get the medical card based on a bias opinion and appearance.

As for the cure for cancer marijuana may not be the answer but a link to the cure for cancer and needs to be researched further.. The things that is does cure is a way to see more green jobs stimulate the economy and hope people stop cutting down trees and using hemp crops for fuel, food, paper.. A cure for global starvation and Co2 emissions and climate change.. What is all natural gasoline and 100% Bio-degradable.. Trees take a lifetime to grow and hemp takes 3 moths.. 1acre Hemp = 4acres Trees. Look up shelled hemp seed and the great benefits nutrition has to offer. I just can't get enough..

And what's funniest is that every time I do answer one of your questions, or a question from any one of you prohibitionists, all I get in return is mostly silence. It's not like you're really looking to a marijuana user for the answer to your questions anyway. It's no secret that the only thing that any of you ever get on here for is to provoke and deride the likes of people like me. You can't bear the fact that most of us pot users lead productive lives, not in spite of but because of marijuana. Get over it and quit assuming the position of being offended by what we do in the privacy of our own homes.

Ya know, it's getting kinda quiet on the comment boards. Granted, there are more pressing matters in the world right now, but I thought that all of the recent pot articles would have inspired more from the peanut gallery than they have.

What can I say? I enjoy a good laugh just as much as the next guy. You prohibitionists really get my stomach hurting sometimes from all the laughing.
The idea that this is actually a REAL debate, one that has both points of view very well represented, is fantasy at best. Every point that each one of you brings up is based in nothing more than fear and propaganda. You rarely give any sources that back up your claims about cannabis and your points have been repeatedly shot down. We're all still waiting for one of you prohibitionists to give us a good reason that justifies continuing the futile(and EXTREMELY costly) war against marijuana. But my favorite part of all of our conversations on here is the childish name calling. Ding-dong is very creative and I take it as more of a term of endearment.

What gives? You just get on here to heckle-and-run? You come make accusations, assumptions, generalizations and ask very pointed questions but as soon as someone gives you a good answer or shoots down some of your BS, you're on the run again. It'd be nice if some of you prohibitionists would stick around for more than a comment or two.